HC upholds order on DNA test of witness, child

Madras High Court has upheld a Mahila court's order directing a government witness to undergo a DNA test along with her child after she went back on her statement that she was married to her maternal uncle, who has been accused of cheating another woman after having physical relationship.
Dismissing a petition by witness Saranya of Perambalur challenging the mahila court order, the high court held that a recalcitrant witness cannot be allowed to go scot-free and the DNA test was required in order to arrive at the truth.
The matter related to a criminal case filed against one Manikandan and others on the charge that he had married the petitioner, then a minor, after allegedly cheating another woman and after having physical relationship with her in 2015.

The village panchayat had directed him to marry the petitioner, then a minor, and asked the other woman to be his second wife.
On a complaint from the woman, cases under IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act were filed against Manikandan and others, including Saranya's parents.
During in-camera proceedings which were videographed, the petitioner told the magistrate that Manikandan was her maternal uncle and she didn't want to give any statement.

Later she gave birth to a male child on September 7, 2015 at the Permabalur Government Hospital and Manikandan's name was recorded as the father in the birth certificate.

However, during the trial in the case, she appeared in the court as a witness and said her husband Manikandan was abroad and he was not her maternal uncle and she did not know anything about the criminal case.
Following this, the prosecution moved the court for a direction to subject Saranya and her child to DNA test.
Upholding the mahila court order, the high court, after hearing arguments and referring to various Supreme Court and high court judgements, said. "In the case at hand, it is not the paternity of the child that is in issue. The issue before this court is whether Manikandan [A1] has committed an offence under the POCSO Act. The issue of legitimacy would only be incidentally involved."

The harm that would befall if such a power (directing DNA test) was not recognised in the trial court would be far greater, because it will be easier for people to prey upon minor girls from downtrodden communities like predators and force them to turn turtle in the witness box, the court said.